Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

SlamDiego

User SlamDiego has accused me of misconduct on the AfD page for Biflation, accusing me of unfairly making it seem that an anon IP had attempted to vote twice. I responded that that my edits in total (all within minutes of each other) merely wikified the page, and although one of my edits had added 'keep' in front of two comments from the same IP, I had quickly realised my mistake and consolidated the comments into one vote. (Final version of the page as I left it here.)

Instead of leaving it at that, he has continued to further accuse me of misconduct, thus taking over the AfD page (sorry state of AfD page after our argument [1]). This continued even after I pointed out that it would be better confined to the parallel argument we were having carrying out on his talk page. I have asked him to retract his false accusation, and he has refused. [2]

As background, the last time I had a a conversation with Slamdiego, he also ended with an insult. I asked him politely if he could use simpler English, as I found it hard to understand what he was saying [3]. He essentially responded by saying if I can't understand him I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia [4].

Initially, I merely noted that he had made a mistake. When he continued to further accuse me of wrongdoing, I asked that he retract his false accusation, pointing him at the page history. He seems to be constitutionally unable to admit that he has made a mistake. I do not seek any redress on this issue, as I am satisfied that it is clear from the edit history that he was wrong in making the original accusation. I merely file this alert so that it is noted that this user makes unreliable accusations, and will not admit he is wrong even when pointed that he has made a mistake.

--LK (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor from IP number 209.107.217.23 made two comments to AfD/Biflation ([5][6]). During a series of subsequent edits, Lawrencekhoo placed a bold “Keep -” in front of each, as if each were a separate vote. When he recognized that the two comments were from the same IP number, he reordered comments to place one right after the other, but left the “Keep” that he had placed in front of each. After I discovered these edits, I objected “An edit by the Lawrencekhoo has unfairly made it seem that 209.107.217.23 has attempted to vote twice.”

Lawrencekhoo has subsequently struggled for what to claim about how many times the editor voted ([7] [8] [9][10]) but has insisted that he in fact consolidated the comments into one vote, notwithstanding that he left the two “Keeps” in front of the two comments, and that they stood there until I removed one, more than a day after he left them there.

I did not claim that Lawrencekhoo acted with an intention to cheat or to game the system, but Lawrencekhoo has repeatedly claimed that I did ([11][12]), and has repeatedly demanded that I retract, apologize, &c ([13][14][15][16][17]), in spite of it repeatedly being noted that I had offered no such theory for his actions ([18][19][20][21]). Lawrencekhoo has denounced this straight-forward point as “unreasonably obtuse” and “obscurantist” ([22][23]).

The original party to whom an apology was owed was the anonymous editor (who merely expressed his view, and then made a follow-up comment), and that only false charges here are those from Lawrencekhoo. —SlamDiego_←T 10:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the version [24] where Slamdiego claims that I left two bold 'Keep's in front of both comments, you will see that there is only one 'Keep', only in front of the first comment. LK (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

With that evidence, I discovered that the second “Keep” had been re-added by another editor (my error was in not allowing for the possibility that there had been two insertions of this second “Keep”), and I posted a retraction of what I had actually claimed. I note that I am not now claiming that the second editor was attempting to cheat or to game the system, just as I never claimed that Lawrencekhoo was attempting to cheat or to game the system. —SlamDiego_←T 10:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Three lessons to be learned here:

• Do not refactor comments
• IP !votes on AfD are not always held to the same "standard/strength"
• If the evidence WAS available, then you should have collected it BEFORE making accusations (see WP:AGF).

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am gratified that I have been exonerated of wrong doing, but the main reason that I filed this alert is to note that this user made a false accusation, and when pointed out that he had made a mistake, would rather engage in further accusations rather than look at the page history. I'm sorry if I do not exhibit a generosity of spirit, but his non-apology apology leaves me still rattled. LK (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My apology was exactly for what I did wrong — claiming that you'd left in-place the second “Keep” when it was in fact restored by a different editor. Our extended argument did not result from my being unwilling to look at the page history, but from your insistence that I had accused you of seeking to cheat or to game the system (something that no one can find in the page history). Since I did not make such accusations it would be best if you withdrew and apologized for that claim. Doing so would be no more “generous” than was my withdrawal and apology. —SlamDiego_←T 22:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I will merely point out the obvious that when someone says that another person has unfairly made it seem that a third person attempted to vote twice, that is a strong accusation of misconduct. If shown wrong, the withdrawal of the statement, especially if it comes after further acrimonious accusations because the accuser did not bother to look carefully at the page history, does not constitute an apology. LK (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No. As a simple matter of logic, there is a distinction between results being unfair and the actions which brought them about being misconduct, cheating, or an attempt to game the system. I said that the appearance that the anon had voted twice was unfair; it was. It doesn't matter an awful lot to me whether you apologize; but it does matter somewhat to me that third parties see for what your unjustified accusation and your insistence that I plead guilty to a spurious charge for what they are, and that most of the acrimony here has been in your pressing of this unsupported and unsupportable charge. I have apologized for my actual error (as should you); I will not apologize for invented sins. —SlamDiego_←T 08:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I expect that this discussion, and that in which Lawrencekhoo levelled his spurious accusations will be archived without retraction or apology from Lawrencekhoo, but on his own talk page Lawrencekhoo has conceded to a third party that perhaps he was mistaken. Lawrencekhoo earlier declared that his intention in complaining here was to alert others in the future to my behavior, so perhaps it is only fair if this be rchived alerting others to his behavior. —SlamDiego_←T 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That is an inaccurate summary of my comment. Only a humor impaired reading can read this as an admission of fault:[25]

Hmm, ok, I will take this into consideration. However, when I read it, it appeared to be a serious accusation of misconduct. Similar to breaking into a polling booth and stuffing the ballot boxes with obviously fake votes for you opponent so as to discredit him. Perhaps I'm too old fashioned, but I saw it as an insult to my honesty, my reputation was impinged. I do believe, if I was living in the 19th century, I would have dueled over this. It was a matter of 'face'. <Laughs> I am too old fashioned. Or perhaps, just too Chinese. Excuse me, I think I'll go brew some tea now. Perhaps some dim sum afterwards.

If anything, it is an admission that Slamdiego's accusation has hurt me deeply. However, as Slamdiego suggests, let us archive this discussion, taking note of Slamdiego's pursuing of this matter long after I had allowed him to have the last word. BTW, I only came back here to see what had happened in the complaint against User:William M. Connolley below, which I had commented on. Frankly, I'm a bit shocked to see this comment from Slamdiego, who I guess still harbors a grudge against me. LK (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that you had admitted fault; I said that you had conceded the possibility of fault. (Again, you ignore an important logical distinction.) And my comment here wasn't an expression of a grudge. You held — and I agree — that there can be a service in reporting here an unwillingness to retract a false accusation; I am applying that principle upon which we agree in your case. As part of that application, I predicted that, while the attempt of an independent party to reason with you got you to admit the possibility of error — why else would there be a need to take his remarks into consideration? — they would not get you to retract. (Partly, that expectation was formed in the context of your having had time to mull-over the remarks of the independent editor, and yet not then acting to remedy the situtation.) My prediction is now borne out. —SlamDiego_←T 15:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it surprising that you think it noteworthy when someone admits the possibility of fault. I freely admit that I may be wrong about everything, I don't think I'd trust anyone who was sure of anything (without allowing for possibility of fault), except perhaps, 'I am, I exist.' LK (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a poor line of argument. Declaring that you would take the remarks of the third editor into consideration wasn't merely acknowledging some preëxisting, metaphysical uncertainty, it was acknowledging heightened uncertainty. And his point was actually one already made, but apparently you were more willing to give it consideration when made by a third party.

What's noteworthy is that, even with that point being one of logic, and even with it being made by an uninvolved editor, and even with resultant heightened uncertainty on your part, you would still not retract and apologize for the accusation. —SlamDiego_←T 01:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

One merely has to reference the original statement to see the falsity of the above argument. I was being polite, something I strive to be always.

I think this whole interaction stands as a testament to the typical response of Slamdiego to editors who have crossed him in some way – hair-splitting and obscurantist language meant to intimidate rather than illuminate. Much as I would like more evidence of this behavior, I would suggest to the administrative clerk that this page has seen enough, and that archiving is appropriate. LK (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith rather than “polite” deception in your response to the third editor, and I note that you are only availing yourself of this interpretation of your remarks after previously accepting that they implied uncertainty. If you weren't being truthful in response to that third editor (to be “polite”), why not have said so in your previous remarks here, instead of trying to put a metaphysical spin on things? Further, your claim that I am “hair-splitting” and “obscurantist” in what amounts to plain-spoken logical spot-lighting is simply another aspect of your accusations that doesn't withstand scrutiny. (And I note that the third editor made the same point that, when I made it, provoked your initial charges of obtuseness and obscurantism. Do you want the reader to believe that he too is an obscurantist?) —SlamDiego_←T 08:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Renewal of complaint The above comment is unacceptable. Slamdiego has just accused me of lying (imagining that one cannot be polite by noting one's metaphysical uncertainty). Although dressed up in obscure language, his response violates WP:CIVIL. If any admin is watching, I would like appropriate action to be taken. LK (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, you certainly cannot make that stretch. First you tried to represent your remark to the editor as merely expressing a preëxisting, metaphysical uncertainty. Then, when it was pointed out that the remarks implied a heightened uncertainty, you contradicted that with a claim that you had made them simply to be “polite”. The third editor's explanation wasn't metaphysical in nature, and the only way that your response to it wasn't a deception (“polite” or otherwise) was if your uncertainty were heightened. And you still haven't answered my question: Do you believe that the other editor, in making the same argument that I had made and that you had called obscurantist, was being obscurantist? —SlamDiego_←T 13:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No blocks are issued at this venue; if you would like to escalate your complaints, please use ANI for blocks, or try the next step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution system to try to resolve it through other means. Probably the latter in this case. I don't believe we can do much else here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Blaxthos

"Niteshift36, smartassed comments are unwelcome and unproductive." [26]. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind him, that's just his editing style: [27]. My suggestion: just deal with it. Soxwon (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, I'm sick of his "style". He comes to my talk page and writes a rambling accusation of "ownership" where he whines about my "right wing agenda", then repeats it again in the diff. Litters my talk page with accusations about my "contemptuous" attitude. Get a mirror. If I can get "officially warned" over calling someones intelligence "alleged", then I shouldn't have to put up with this from him. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, all your going to get out of this is an indignant "how dare you challenge an experienced editor?" and ignored. Despite gems like this one floating around (Comment on content, not the contributer; next post: It doesn't surprise me that when you run out of substance you switch to personal attacks, namecalling, and insults), Blaxthos has shown consistently that he's not going to change how he edits. Like I said, just ignore him and move on. Soxwon (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Niteshift36, the quote you posted is a comment on an "edit" and not an "editor", so it does not qualify as a personal attack. Accusations of ownership are different, and of course this invites a larger review of both parties actions. You could suggest to Blaxthos to keep any discussion-related messages on the article talkpage for now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why does that response not surprise me? Did I say anything about personal attacks? Or did I say incivility? Niteshift36 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're not going to provide specific diff's related to being accused of ownership, then your sole complaint is surrounding the phrase "Niteshift36, smartassed comments are unwelcome and unproductive.". You indeed made a sarcastic comment about "why even write articles at all". Indeed, sarcasm has no place in a positive discussion about a subject, especially when trying to resolve an issue. Based on the diff's you have provided, nobody has been uncivil, nobody has created a hostile editing environment, and nobody - possibly save yourself - have created a situation where difficult communications exist. It honestly appears that because your ideas are not getting consensus that you're trying to discredit others - not a good idea, if this is in fact the case. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• If I wanted the ownership accusation to be part of it, I'd have posted the diff. I give people a lot of leeway on talk pages, so my complaint has nothing to do with that. I mentioned it only in response to Soxwon, who appears to be correct....that Blaxthos can do whatever he wants and nobody will say anything to him about it. Perhaps you should read more carefully. My idea, which was to change the template from "alma mater" to "schools attended" got plenty of support both at the Village Pump and at the article talk page. And, I guess you also missed that others at the Village Pump think that my position that it is being used correctly is right. But noooooo, you ignore the actual discussion, put the blame on me and excuse his behavior. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So accusations of WP:BATTLE, accusations of a right-wing agenda, and statements like I think any reasonable editor can conclude that your interest is more towards serving a particular point of view than it is in improving Wikipedia within our accepted policies, guidelines, and norms. are considered civil and productive edits? The latter two were a part of the diff that Niteshift provided: [28]. Soxwon (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may throw in my experience with Blax, I'll let you know that he's made partisan attacks at me on talk pages before too. He also likes to remove things that make FNC look good on either its main page or controversy page, like the Center for Media and Public Affairs report on the 2008 presidential election. Also, why keep him as an admin if you'd had problems with his editing style that he refuses to change? Isn't that called insubordination?PokeHomsar (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Blaxthos isn't an admin... Soxwon (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nor will he be warned about intentionally baiting me by repeating it two more times (in the edit and the edit summary). [29] Niteshift36 (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, if Blax isn't an admin, and y'all have had problems with him in the past, why hasn't he been banned if at least temporarily? He sure as hell bullied me like an admin. He made threats against me and "pushed his weight around" that gave him a somewhat arrogant air of authority. I just assumed he was an admin.PokeHomsar (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor at 98.207.210.210 - abusive

I am quite confident this editor means well, and I accept that I may be completely wrong in my edits. Even if so, however this abuse and this abuse in the edit summaries really must end. Even if consensus goes against me, I don't deserve to be treated this way.- sinneed (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've left him a template. I have no idea what the right text or sources for the article might be, but his language is definitely immoderate.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also commented on Talk:Labh Singh. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed this discussion a minute ago only. Kindly grant some time so that I could explain ruthless vandalism of wikipedia article by User:Sinneed. I promise that I will present strong proofs. I was hoping that User:Sinneed will be extremely sad after knowing that his destruction of wiki articles has been caught and he will regrett it, but I did not know that he won't care at all AND he will come up with new excuses to oppose an editor who has opposed his destruction of wiki articles.--98.207.210.210 (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• New posts by 98.207.210.210 here and here.- sinneed (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC) And continuing in that vein.- sinneed (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Through edit 1 and edit 2 etc, I have simply notified all respected wikipedia editors (except User:Sinneed, who is already over here]], who have recently contributed to the article in question, i.e. Labh Singh. The respected editors have experienced User:Sinneed's huge vandalism, wp:pov violations in the same article, one of these respected wiki ediotors have even issed a formal warning to User:Sinneed and made a formal complaint against his behavior/vandalism at an administrative's talk page. It appears that User:Sinneed want an ASAP decision so that his vandalism and violations of wikipedia policies do not get exposed. It is 1:58am PST at my end, Kindly wait for me and all other (involved) respected wiki editors to join this discussion. --98.207.210.210 (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• My hope here is that established editors in the community will provide you (and I) with guidance.
  There is nothing to "wait" for. This is not a place where a decision will be made to take some action. This page is simply a place to go to find Wikipedia editors who are interested in helping resolve problems of Wikipedia etiquette.
  Had I been "rushing", I would have taken this article to ANI or the Copyright page immediately, in June, instead of painstakingly restoring edits mass-reverted as "vandalism" (such foul deeds as removing double periods, adding sources, removing copyright violations), explaining why each was appropriate. There is no rush.
  I would like to encourage you to create, log into, and use a single account, so that you can begin to build a reputation as a Wikipedia editor.- sinneed (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• User:Sinneed, kindly avoid diverting wiki administrators mind from the real issue of your vandalism. It appears that you are trying to club multiple editors (may be you suspect that they all can join this discussion to expose your misdeeds) into 'one' so that you could kill their credibility in advance. Kindly be patient, it is weekend, usually several editors try enjoying their weekends with their families, I am sure that (considering your huge vandalism) they will definitely join this discussion by this monday. Thanks a lot.--98.207.210.210 (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be an edit war. Needs an admin eye I think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Respected User: Sinneed was previously warned by an editor over here and a formal complaint was also filed against his vandalism at an Admin’s talk page
• Respected User:Sinneed vandalized article Labh Singh, kept on destroying hard work of other respected Wikipedia editors until article Labh Singh was locked by an administrator. Revision history of Labh Singh shows User:Sinneed had edited this article continuously for 17 times until it was noticed by an admin who decided to lock it immediately. He was the only editor who was continuously deleting the legitimate information/references without any discussion.
• Proofs of respected User:Sinneed's edits/Lies and vandalism -

• In vandalism 1, User:Sinneed deleted two very important references and the related text without any discussion while mis-leading Wikipedia community with his lies. In an effort to delete the sentences which he might not have liked wp:pov, he lied in his edit summary Source is already a named source in the article, and it doesn't mention the bank robbery. Warning...if I can figure out which of the IP herd made that change easily" . Kindly note that the third paragraph in the 1st deleted reference clearly says "Police said Sukhdev Singh, himself a former police constable, was responsible for a string of murders and a Major Bank Robbery and the2nd deleted reference clearly says Labh Singh masterminded a bank robbery of Rs. 6 crore from a branch of Punjab National Bank in Ludhiana. This is reputed to be the largest ever bank robbery.
• In edit 2, User: Sinneed added useless "CN" (along with a threatening edit summary Brief CN for the association with Bhindranwale. I'll drop it today without a source" for Labh Singh's association with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale), even though the reference was already there at the end of the sentence. Reference 1 clearly states "early 80s, he came under the influence of Bhindranwale and resigned from the police force, reference 2 clearly notedLabh Singh, a close confederate of (Sant) Bhindranwale's", and in the same reference, Labh Singh said "I can't show my back to Sant Ji, I will fight with him and face martyrdom in this place.
• vandalism 2 User:Sinneed simply changed the section "Association with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale" to "Joining Sikh militants" to further his POV, eventhough above mentioned references clearly prove subject's association with Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale.
• In vandalism 3 User: Sinneed again mislead (lied to) Wikipedia community through his edit summary "source is about that person but doesn't tie to the murder of the publisher" even though the the deleted reference clearly mentioned "In Punjab his name figured in the 38 cases of violence taking place between 1983 and 86, including the one in which the editor of the Hind Samachar group of newspaper Ramesh Chander was gunned down in Jalandhar".

• Isn’t Sinneed harassing other respected Wikipedia editors (who might have done hours and hours of research work to find and add these valuable references) by deleting their hard work/valuable references? How can we guide respected User:Sinneed to READ the references before he destroy/vandalize wikipedia articles ?
• Considering all these documented proofs of respected User:Sinneed’s lies/misleading/in-accurate edit summaries and destruction of Wikipedia articles, if (in an effort to save an article) I have objected to his lies/mis-leading statements and destruction of Wikipedia articles then what is my fault ? I was honest, my intention was not bad, I wanted to save wikipedia article from his ruthless vandalism only...--98.207.210.210 (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:BilCat, incivility

Stuck

[[::User:BilCat|BilCat]] (talk · contribs) seems to be snubbing all of my concerns with uncivil summaries.[30] It appears that a similar incident occurred just a few days ago. I find it particularly unproductive to label others' comments as "stupidity" while carrying an "I'll revert when and why I want to" attitude, or to call another person "obnoxious". —LOL ^T/_C 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Stop hounding Bill, he has indicated to be left alone and what you're continuing doing is no different from WP:Harassing. If it was me, I would have chosen to disengage. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The intended purpose of my alert is to address Bill's uncivil summaries, not what I had previously went to his talk page for (even though I would still like to see why "the guidelines contradict themselves"). I haven't made any threats, I haven't attempted to intimidate anyone, and this is just a courtesy notice so I don't believe I'm harassing or hounding him. —LOL ^T/_C 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not much for the cops-and-robbers approach, here, but I've left a note on BilCat's talk page and hope we can all resolve this like adults. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And that note was removed. Charming. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm "whining on Wikiquette", so I don't get the feeling that he sees anything wrong with his recent behaviour...or perhaps my judgment is wrong? Is it actually civil to call someone's comment "stupidity" and call someone "obnoxious", then ignore the admin who attempts to resolve the situation? —LOL ^T/_C 01:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, if there continue to be problems, then it either will require admin action or going up the next step in DR - which would probably be a user conduct RfC. It's clear we cannot do anything further here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User: Niteshift36 ... personal attacks

The user Niteshift36 posts consistently and repeatedly in an aggressive and accusatory tone. One specific incident of a personal attack is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Hannity&diff=305377264&oldid=305376863 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douggmc (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see a violation of WP:NPA in Niteshift36's post immediately above the diff you posted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BWilkins for commenting quickly. I'll just call out basically the first thing stated in WP:NPA ... which is "This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor." I don't see any other way to interpret his responses to me .. which are: "You're incredible" and "That (i.e., my opinion) is ridiculous." --Douggmc (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I asked you what part of that was a personal attack and you've failed to reply. The only part I can see is that some how you find "you're incredible" to be some sort of attack or calling your position ridiculous. You've been on the page and commented since then, so you've had time to answer my question. If I made a personal attack, point it out and if I was wrong, I'll apologize. But I don't see where an attack was made, so I can't apologize for one until you show it to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Example: Calling me "incredible", my position "ridiculous". In general, most of the dialog between us carry the same either accusatory or defensive tone by Niteshift36, none of which is conducive to debate or building consensus in my opinion. Beyond my request for Niteshift36 to not attack me personally, I so no further point in debating him or directly addressing him on this topic (which is why didn't respond in the discussion page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douggmc (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the feeling those comments were meant to be taken personally. Editors are bound to disagree from time to time. If someone points out their impression that you haven't researched a topic in depth, this sort of reaction tends to lend some credence to the idea -- I'm sure that wasn't your intention, of course. Niteshift might do well to address your points a little more directly, and specifically in a way that isn't personally bothersome to you, but I don't see anything that seems to be egregiously outside community norms in those comments. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Luna, I made it clear that I called his position ridiculous and not him. I even put the word in italics when I responded about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't feel that way either (that they were personal) from just that posting. But it appears to be a pattern. My decision to post this here was based on this incident above along with a) the general tone of the discussion page as a whole and b) previous warnings to Nightshift36 on personal attacks. I would ask others to read in entirety the "Alma Mater" discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sean_Hannity#Education_errors..._Alma_Mater and the previous Wikiquette Alert on Nightshift36: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User_Niteshift36.2C_personal_attacks --Douggmc (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I do appreciate the distinction, but at the same time Douggmc obviously feels slighted by the sentiment; though I do agree your comment was within the bounds generally accepted by those familiar with Wikipedia norms, my suggestion was simply that you bear in mind the sensitivity of your debate counterpart when speaking with them in the future. I hope that's not a major concession to ask for. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be pedantic, but I'm also not sure you've see the specific post I made above. Just in case, I'll paste it here again: ... basically the first thing stated in WP:NPA ... is "This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor." I don't see any other way to interpret his responses to me .. which are: "You're incredible" and "That (i.e., my opinion) is ridiculous." Is there grey area there ... that is "within the norms" ... that I'm not aware of? --Douggmc (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate to argue semantics, but on the internet, how can you tell that "you're incredible" is being said in a negative manner? By the same regard, how do you know that "that is ridiculous" does not apply to the content of the post - you're the one adding "(my opinion)". I'm playing devil's advocate here for a sec, so don't bite me ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

:) No bites, valid to others who may not be familiar with sitiation. With that said, of course, no wording or phrase can fairly be taken out of context. That would certainly be unfair to everybody involved (niteshift36, me, those taking the time to review this, etc.). I guess I would say that I assumed one would: a) Read more than that specific posting (i.e., the thread in particular ... but other interactions with other editors) on the wiki page to which I linked. b) Consider other actions/reports against said editor. After which, I would hope one would have sufficient context. --Douggmc (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just one thing I forget to answer from your post regarding whether the phrase "That is ridiculous" applies to the content of the post or my opinion/position. Isn't the content of the post my opinion / position? I fail to see the difference. I understand the concept and difference between critiquing someone's position vs. them personally, but the "ridiculous" phrasing is ... dare I say ... ridiculous in terms of being objective and neutral? AT A MINIMUM it is inappropriate and subjective, and considering the editor's history ... I feel it is obvious in its display of passive aggressiveness and attempt to personally discredit me and my opinion. --Douggmc (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• You mean the alma mater discussion where I haven't made any personal attacks? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Milomedes making unfounded accusations of "personal attack" and "ethically questionable behavior"

Milomedes (talk · contribs) has accused me of "ethically questionable behavior" and "biased motivation" after I raised sockpuppet investigations at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chidel.

This user has previously accused me of a personal attack against another user during a RFC on talk:Andy Murray, see diff, and has not withdrawn the accusation despite no complaint from the person that the "attack" was supposedly against and the Wikipedia policies, that it was claimed that I was in breach of, not actually existing.

I have tried to avoid feeding his/her apparent need for drama by staying polite and slowing down any responses but I am at the stage where repeated serious accusations require intervention. This user's history at ANI (none of which involves me) makes me doubt an easy resolution for these matters.

Please note, my edits on these pages were under my account User:Teahot. The relationship between these accounts and my recent migration to a new user name is explained on that user page.—Ash (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems worth noting this looks to have seen about a week without comment from either of you; if you don't mind my asking, why did you bring this here now, after so much time had passed? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Never mind, missed the SPI page. More useful comment in a bit, hopefully. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on the sniping going back and forth, it looks to me like both of you could benefit from a break from that argument. Increasing tension isn't going to accomplish anything, but it will stress everybody out. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Note Ash's use of the noticeboards search. Taking Luna Santin's point as reasonable, yet noticeboard postings like this one must always be responded to lest they be believed later for lack of a response.

Teahot/Ash wants a hearing, and that's ok with me. The facts against him seem well-founded.

My timeline of events:

1. Teahot's !vote in the WT:Andy_Murray#RfC: Should this article contain.... is "Maybe and No" (17:59, 21 July 2009).
2. Scls1984 !voted "Yes to both" (18:34, 21 July 2009, manually signed IP 84.67.36.164). Scls1984 had previously posted for inclusion while logged in (23:09, 7 July 2009), well before Chidel was blocked on 14 July.
3. Gogsynetcord !voted "yes to both" in the RfC (19:02, 23 July 2009). Gogsynetcord's previous unused and lost-password account Netcord was created 3 June 2006.
4. Teahot opened a Sockpuppet investigation (SPI) against Single purpose account (SPA) editor Gogsynetcord (19:33, 23 July 2009 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chidel/Archive). Informed that an SPA is "not necessarily socking", Teahot wrote, "...my suspect as puppeteer is Chidel." (20:19, 23 July 2009). Despite his protest of innocence with an inaccessible first account opened substantially in the past, Gogsynetcord was initially blocked and his case moved to Chidel's archive page.
5. Teahot announced at WT:Andy Murray: "Comment The above vote has now been confirmed as sockpuppet block evasion and should be ignored, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chidel/Archive for details." (04:13, 25 July 2009). Five posts later another editor used this same link to indicate a request for the Gogsynetcord case to be reinvestigated – which post Teahot then calls "disrupting this RFC further."
6. Three editors questioned the logic of a Gogsynetcord sock voting against his Chidel master, at WT:Andy Murray RfC and/or the Gogsynetcord SPI at Chidel's archive page. Gogsynetcord was then unblocked due to conflicting evidence.
7. During the questioning of the Gogsynetcord block at WT:Andy Murray RfC, occurred the incident of which Ash (21:52) wrote above: " ...accused me of a personal attack against another user..." Teahot said "rather than disrupting this RFC further" meant "staying on-topic" rather than "disruptive editing" – yet, he refused to re-edit his statement to read "off-topic". I assume that he wants to reserve his right to use the intimidating term "disrupting" in casual ways. Whether his statement was unintended, yet a PA in context, was never decided.
8. Teahot opened an SPI against SPA editor Scls1984 (09:32, 25 July 2009). Teahot wrote, "The single edit anon IP signed a comment on a RFC (on Talk:Andy_Murray) using the Scls1984 account, the user name is also a single edit account. The Chidel account is a known sock puppet and has previously made attempts to avoid a block on the same RFC. (09:32, 25 July 2009)" The "previously made attempts to avoid a block" statement refers to Teahot's identically evidence-lacking SPI case against Gogsynetcord. Just to make sure his implication of a connection between Scls1984 and Chidel wasn't missed, six minutes later Teahot wrote, "This case may need to be moved to the existing case folder for Chidel." (09:38, 25 July 2009). Using Teahot's implication, the clerk moved the Scls1984 case to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chidel. Teahot later claimed, "The clerk acts independently of suggestions I make for how this investigation is conducted." (11:54, 5 August 2009). See Dictionary.com "railroading" def. 9.
9. At WP:SPI/Chidel(Scls1984) I objected at length to this unfair rerun of the unfair Gogsynetcord SPI. Like Gogsynetcord, Scls1984 had !voted against Chidel. Scls1984 !voted "Yes to both" (18:34, 21 July 2009), oppositely to Chidel's vote on this same issue in a previous section: "Opposed: me" (21:26, 9 July 2009).

My summary statement of these justice issues relating to Teahot's behavior at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chidel reads:

"allegations" "Twice you didn't state critical exculpatory facts in bringing two sockpuppet investigations. When those exculpatory facts were revealed in the previous investigation, the block was rescinded. You appear to have a biased motivation for not stating those exculpatory facts, lack of which unfairly put two new editors through investigations, a scarring block, and guilt-by-association filing with Chidel. If that's an allegation, it's one that's backed by the facts of your ethically questionable behavior." (Milo 21:32, 5 August 2009)

The Silver rule is a pretty good guide to what's proper in this situation. If any editor had done to Teahot/Ash what Teahot/Ash did to those two SPA editors, Teahot/Ash would be here at WQA crying foul. Milo 05:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, I want to say that since the basic rule is "if you think they're a sock, file your damned SPI or stop accusing", then at least they did file it. Ethically, by submitting the SPI if they had pretty good excellent suspicions (and not just a fishing trip) they have done the right thing.

They may not refactor or remove any comments/!votes until an SPI check has led to blocks for socks. SPA tags are fine, if they actually apply. Belittling or downplaying a !vote because you think they're a sock is inappropriate as it really could be WP:BITEy.

What does come across as a concern is the assumption that anyone with a specific type of !vote is automatically a sock - this is, of couse, not always the case.

Teahot has perhaps been a little agressive in claiming sockism, but Milo, you have been a little aggressive in retaliation. Both of you need to learn from this event and move on. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If false witness reporting by material omission from the whole truth is tolerated, none of us are safe.

Simply filing the sock reports was not a problem. But when an admin in the first case stopped the fishing by asking for a named puppetmaster, the logical, ethical answer was either 'I don't know', or 'there was a master previously found on the page – but !voting on the opposite side from this SPA' – so I'm not sure'. Pushing the clerk hard in the second case to file it under Chidel without cause, was premeditated behavior over the line into wrongdoing. Milo 15:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I felt that this was closed as both sides had a little slap on the wrist, I suppose I need to continue. Someone else's actions do not excuse your own behaviour. First of all, you escalated the situation by saying that "disruption" was a personal attack, and have indeed fail to at least state that you may have read WP:NPA wrong. You put the other editor on the defensive, and that led to further action. Yes, Teahot went about things the wrong way, and Wikipedia has places where we deal with that kind of behavour. That does not give you the right to take the path that you did or indeed take matters into your own hands in the way you did. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You have the facts wrong.

Luna Santin was initially puzzled because the two events to which Ash/Teahot refers occurred independently and had only an originating venue relationship. Both of us had apparently moved on from the first event, which was not again mentioned until now. It looks a lot like a smokescreen issue to cover the more serious second event.

Policy is silent on this issue so I couldn't have read WP:NPA wrong. To Teahot I suggested resolving the issue by getting an editors' consensus about it, he got one, I accepted a consensus that "disrupting" does not always mean "disruptive editing", and I contemporaneously struck my remark to the contrary. However, that same consensus concluded that whether Teahot actually PA'ed another editor would have to be decided based on the particular context, which was never done.

It's not credible to propose that my asking Teahot to strike a PA, somehow "escalated the situation" in a different venue, causing Teahot to withhold material evidence to get an SPA blocked. He apparently did what he did because he benefited from doing it. That bad block was helpful to his position in the RfC, until I and another editor worked to get it rescinded. Then Teahot tried to do the same thing again, and if it wasn't for me, he might have succeeded in railroading a second SPA. MeatballWiki:DefendEachOther: "if someone else is attacked, defend them."

WQA is difficult work to do correctly, which I know from having worked some on structuring of this venue in 2007. On-the-job learning of judging is scattered with pitfalls, as most participants lack the benefit of professional arbitration study.

Having incorrectly determined that both parties were wrong based on your misunderstanding of the timing and the facts, you are now emotionally invested in proving your prematurely closed theory. Thank you for being willing to help, but if you are serious that the WQA noticeboard not be seen as biased, please recuse yourself and step aside from this case. Milo 00:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would hold off on your arrogant dismissal above. I have significant training and work as a mediator/arbitrator, and attacks like that on the volunteers in WQA will not be tolerated. My advice, as previously given stands: let it drop already. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that writing "...you're insulting me..." in the edit summary where you can't strike it, shows significant lack of mediation/arbitration accomplishment despite significant training and work. Where none is intended, insult can be taken subjectively as an invalid response to valid criticism, and that is what you did. I invite others to read your April 2009 failed RfA where "...doesn't handle criticism well" and "...edit summary condescending" were among the issues described.

If you sincerely want to learn how you could have handled this case better, I'll be glad to help find the most professionally skilled mediator available at WP to instruct you. Everyone at WQA including you would benefit. Milo 19:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

( Note - I don't think this WQA is much to do with me any more... I feel much better for applying the WQA process and I think I have learned something about dealing with these situations too, hopefully making me a better editor in future. Thanks for your help.—Teahot/Ash (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC) )

User:Ward3001 making ongoing insults after being warned

A few uncivil remarks / personal threats: [31][32] [33][34] [35]

Warning by Slim [36]

Warning by Chillium [37] Continued incivility [38] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no incivility or personal threats in asking questions or asking someone to remain on topic on a talk page. As for the warning by Chillum, in that very same warning, Chillum falsely accused me of telling another editor that their edits are "laughable", when in fact I was responding to that editor's telling me my comments are laughable here. As for SlimVirgin's warnings, I ask that anyone look at an entire exchange between SV and me in the last two days on both our talk pages. It reveals much more than the very first comment made to me by SV. As for "Continued incivility" [39], I thought James would see the :) emoticon as an indication that it was said in good humor, but apparently not, so I apologzie. Ward3001 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone should try to move on and shake hands to avoid further drama. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

[40] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone tell me how asking James whether he wants psychologists to violate ethics, after he said "Create a new user name pretend you are not a psychologist", is an uncivil remark or a personal threat? Or maybe it was the term "faulty thinking", which I said I "think" he slipped into because I wanted to be sure he wasn't misstating something that didn't come across very well. Would someone tell me whether this kind of picky parsing of every word in a sentence is helpful, or is it just this a witch hunt? Ward3001 (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that other editors consider some of James' talk page comments and behaviors inappropriate and done in bad faith: [41].

I have agreed with Nja247 to move on and end this witch hunt. Ward3001 (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on earlier bits, I don't see how the most recent diff linked is any sort of etiquette problem -- if there's something I'm missing, a little more explanation would be very helpful. Reporting everything Ward says here is hardly going to help calm things down. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Luna, for a voice of reason and calm. Ward3001 (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay if this is considered appropriate I will leave it at that. We are after all just having a little fun.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask that any admin who happens to be looking at this post consider observing the actions of all parties involved in this dispute. We have a serious shortage of administrators who are not directly involved with the content dispute and frankly need someone to enforce civility in general there. I am not suggesting that you focus on Ward, but rather take an objective and neutral stance on what is appropriate during a debate. Thank you. Chillum 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Chillum on this. I think the talk page, if not the article, could benefit from neutral administrative focus on issues of incivility, false accusations, misrepresentation of others' opinions, and attitudes that are disparaging toward or unwelcoming of any editor or group of editors. Ward3001 (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is way out of line. Comparing a Wikipedian to Josef Mingele a nazi who tortured and murdered hundreds of children is beyond the pale. Chillum 02:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Here we are back to the witch hunt. I DID NOT compare anyone to Josef Mingele. I said that I thought Josef Mingele would have agreed with the statement that the reporting of human knowledge cannot be compromised. The point here, for anyone who doesn't understand, is that some people think there should be an ethical limit in some cases of reporting knowledge. This line of thought was also commented on by another editor immediately below my comment: "in order to move forward towards a greater goal of actually recording the breadth and depth of that knowledge in a way that is both accurate and not socially harmful". Nowhere, nowhere did I say anyone's behavior is like Josef Mingele's; I said that the opinion, when taken to it's extreme, is something that Mingele would agree with.

This is a good example of the very long pattern of Chillum's mispresentation of my comments, reading things into my comments that are not there, and overreaction to any expression of opinion about content, not editors, that I might have. It's the witch hunt continuing. Ward3001 (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering plain and simple, you compared him to a horrible nazi. You need to stop being so disruptive. Chillum 02:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, where were you when the other side was making comparisons to Mao's brutal comunists?Faustian (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I compared the concept to those endorsed by Mingele. My words: "Dr. Josef Mingele no doubt would have strongly agreed with that statement." Not "User X you sound like a Nazi". It's quite obvious to me that this is a veiled attempt to push me into a position where I can't even comment on the ideas that James or Chillum discuss on the talk page. This is a prime example of why we need some administrative supervision on the talk page. This pattern of false accusations and reading things into words that simply are not there needs to stop, and I am asking you to please stop it now. Ward3001 (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that by denying you the right to reference nazis that you are put in a position where you can't even comment on the ideas that James or I? Surely you can dispute our points without referring to an unrelated butcher. Chillum 04:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, I hope we've settled this on our talk pages. But I think it's important to understand that comments about ideas are almost always acceptable if they aren't directed at accusing an editor of anything, and my comments were about an idea, not an editor. I feel that James and I now have come to an understanding and can communicate about other, much more important matters. I hope you'll join us. Ward3001 (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you really don't see how that comment was offensive do you? Chillum 04:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean James' comment "Hey Ward No harm done", I don't see anything offensive in his comment. Please assume good faith on his part. Ward3001 (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is turning into round 2 or 3 or 4 (unsure) of the dispute. From a brief look it doesn't seem that Ward is the only concern, thus I think this report should be closed and parties urged towards a likely more appropriate forum (see below). However it must be said that no one should be comparing anyone to another. When in dispute, you are to comment on the edits, not the editor (see WP:FOC). Don't waste time trying to rationalise it, or say you meant something else please. Accept what you've done and learn from it and don't do it again or risk a block. Overall, perhaps it's time to work up to the next step of dispute resolution, ie open a request for comment. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Doc James, I am wondering what you were looking for from WQA? You noted in your opening post that the user in question was already warned. If you were therefore looking for blocks, then you know from the beginning of this page that we cannot issue blocks here. If you felt that you required immediate assistance, WP:ANI was the correct forum. If you are trying to establish a pattern of incivility and ask for community input/decisions, then WP:RFC/U is the correct forum. Please clarify how you think we can help at this juncture in the "dispute" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Spartan9199

Almost every edit by Spartan9199 (talk · contribs) today has had undertones of incivility and personal attacks. I have asked him several times to refrain and even attempted to work with him on the issue he raised, but he continues to resort to attacks. I would like a neutral third party to investigate both this user's behavior and mine.

I would go into detail on the relevant edits, but a quick glance at Spartan9199's contributions should point you in the right direction faster than I can. --Chris (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that asking for a reliable source is considered a personal attack. I'll keep that in mind.Spartan9199 (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Chris, you should provide diffs, such as these -

[42] this one is rude, but not a personal attack, just a comment about the editor's perception of other editors. [43] not uncivil [44] asking for a reliable source, perfectly reasonable [45] Spartan9199 can't see the citation (which is odd because it had been added about 10 minutes previous [46]) [47] Ah, he means he doesn't approve of the reference as a reliable source [48] still asking for a reliable source [49] "How can a college graduate (you) not understand proper citation?" Seems a fair question to me.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad someone cleared this thing up. I still suggest for the section of the article to be deleted.

-Spartan9199 (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You;ll have to take that to another venue I'm afraid. Is this article part of a project. Perhaps a few more experts might help.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

The user has a lengthy quotation from a copyrighted work in his userspace [50], without even an attempt to provide a fair use justification. I tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio, placing the standard/suggested notice on the user's main talk page[51]. Merridew responded with a snarky, derisive comment suggesting it was inappropriate to "template" him because he was a "regular" and characterizing me as "a dick." [52], refusing to provide any justification for his inserting copyrighted material into userspace. I suspect I'm being baited, and I find this level of gratuitous incivility inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Templating the regulars gets people annoyed, it would have been nicer to use your own words. Citing m:Don't be a dick doesn't mean you were called a dick. Ease up man. Seems more like you went on the attack. - Josette (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a bit of sense to me. The speedy deletion policy/guidelines suggest using that template. They say nothing about substituting your own language for it. Frankly, I think applying m:Don't be a dick to a user is far more "annoying," if not actively offensive. The "don't template the regulars" essay is just that, an essay (and a fairly obscure one, which isn't even referenced on WP:TEMPLATES), and its talk page indicates it's far from universally accepted. I don't see where I went on any "attack". User Merridew violated WP:FU, indisputably and without any attempt to justify his action. When I used the policy-recommended process to address the matter, he responded derisively and uncivilly. I hardly think my discussing this amounts to an "attack." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first I'm going to post what I posed on Merridew's page:

That's not templating, it's tagging for copyvio, there's a difference. Besides, you'll need to read Do template the regulars because occasionally we all forget that the policies we're safeguarding apply to us too

That said, Hullaballoo, when the page is not in article space, you are farrrrrr better off asking the user about it first, rather than flat out tagging it. Referring someone to WP:DICK is not calling you a dick, it's warning that you may be approaching dickishness. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

All debate aside regarding copyright, templating, etc. ... I don't see how using that tag is ANYTHING BUT a personal attack. It is not productive. You can parse the wording any way you wish of course ... but I don't think it would be a fair, objective assessment. I see no constructive use for that tag/link, beyond antagonizing and insulting. --Douggmc (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Which tag are you talking about? The CSD for copyvio? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, read his summary. Hullaballoo, many people have quotes on their user and talk pages. Jack is a reasonable guy, if you had chosen to discuss first, instead of slapping those confrontational tags on his page, which can be construed as an attack, I am confident you would have gotten a much nicer response. It is not too late to go back and change your approach. - Josette (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Bwilkins ... I'm talking about the WP:DICK or m:Don't be a dick tags. --Douggmc (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Josette, with all due respect, I noticed that on both your and Jack's user talk pages that you have a relationship. While I'm not saying you are or can't be impartial here, or that having a relationship with someone even precludes impartiality necessarily ... I would think it appropriate to recuse yourself from this discussion. Independence (as they say in the accounting/auditing industry) is as much perception as reality. --Douggmc (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I know he is a reasonable guy. You may find DefendEachOther interesting reading. - Josette (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Douggmc, after 10,000,000 hours of jurisprudence, there are few people who will agree with your interpretation of the use of WP:DICK or the m:Don't be a dick links to essays (not tags). Indeed, I have even used them right here in this forum to warn people about the direction they're heading. If someone reads it, and feels that it applies to them and therefore get upset ... well, then that's de facto proof that they were being one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the "10,000,000 hours of jurisprudence" part? Nonetheless, I'll leave one last comment on this thread then ... because maybe I am wrong in my thoughts on the use of that term/phrase. Personally, if those types of phrases are thrown around regarding a person or their actions, then I don't want to be a part of this community. I'll let other users/editors take it from here on this subject. I don't think the use is justified by the subject of this WQA or anybody. Good luck.--Douggmc (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There's over a million official editors ... and more than a million posts on the Administrator's Noticeboards. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Douggmc, I'm a little concerned ... based on your perception of what is and what is not incivility. I hate to ask, but is English your first language? Your WQA entry on Niteshift above, and your confusion over pointing out an essay and actually calling someone a "dick" seems to show that you're missing some of the nuances of written English. Again, not being bitey here, merely trying to help you fit in here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes ... English is my native and first language. I even have a couple years of college level Russian language education (so I understand languages in general). I think I see and understand nuance pretty well, but sometimes nuance doesn't matter. FWIW ... I don't see any difference, in terms of offensiveness and incivility, between calling someone a "dick" and telling someone to stop acting like a "dick". Both are offensive slang terminology. I think the WP:NOTCENSORED applies to article content, not in interpersonal dealings with peers. I still stand by my comment on this subject wholeheartedly.--Douggmc (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you just need to understand "you're a dick", and a warning that "you're getting close to acting like a WP:DICK" are quite different. "You might want to read WP:DICK is clearly the latter, and not the former, and has been held by ArbComm as such. Have a read through the Admin's Noticeboard for Incidents every so often ... it will be quite illuminating! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, without passion and irritation here ... please ... I understand the nuance of how "dick" is and can being used. If we are going to parse the uses in such a manner, then so be it. It is clear to me that it was and is being used in a manner to "slam" a person one is debating. I could conceivably see its use as not offensive if it is used in a clearly humorous/joking manner (i.e., context counts). I find it offensive. I'm not going to use it and I hope others won't either. I can find other ways to make my point. --Douggmc (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It always fascinated me when someone can say with a straight face that telling someone "m:don't be a dick" isn't insulting because of the little "m" in front. I can't speak for people who eat, sleep, and breathe Wikipedia, but normal humans don't think that way. It may not be against any guideline or policy to say it, ArbCom may have even blessed it (where, by the way, did that happen? I'd like to read it). But if you're actually trying to solve an actual problem with an actual human, it's a stupid thing to say. Sorry, I mean it's a m:stupid thing to say (that was close, I was almost rude!). If more people made more of an effort to avoid saying stupid things - not because they violate policy, but because it's not how grownups talk to one another, and it's unlikely to serve any useful purpose - more productive stuff would get done.

As far as the underlying WQA issue, saying something insulting isn't the same as making a Wikipedia Personal Attack^(TM), and not every single slight to one's character needs to be brought to the community for discussion. HW and JM should both grow slightly thicker skins and move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's simple. WP:DTTR, one. Two, flagging a copyvio on a user's personal page is asinine and absurd. Three, that kind of passive aggressive behaviour is precisely why we have WP:DICK. If some editor's wish to refrain from using it, fine. But that's just like your personal opinion, man, so lighten (/grow) up. Eusebeus (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's simple. Don't call people a "dick". It is common courtesy ... regardless of the forum or past standards. I'll even go so far as don't tell your peers to "grow up" either (and it is my personal opinion ... I'm just shocked others are seem to be so cavalier and "matter of fact" regarding the topic). --Douggmc (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh .. and the saying is: "Yeah well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man" ala The Big Lebowski[53]. Great movie ... I appreciate the humor ... if that was what you intended ... El Duderino. Now excuse me for the evening while I kick back with a nice refreshing White Russian. --Douggmc (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what all the fuss is about, a copyvio is a copyvio, its irrelevant if its in a userspace or the mainspace, it should be speedied asap. Jack_Merridew is clearly in the wrong here for hosting the copyvio material, and Hullaballoo is merely following Wikipedia guidelines. Jeni ^(talk) 22:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

He has a quote from a large body of work on his talk page - it's there to illustrate a point - this is allowed under Wikipedia:Non-free content. - Josette (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not allowed on his talk page/in his userspace. From Wikipedia:Non-free content, Policy#9: "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace. . . ." If this were a non-free image rather than text, my impression is that practice would call for me to summarily remove it. The parallel action here would have been for me to blank the page in question, which I think is a more provocative action than a deletion proposal. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: In my recent experience Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is a stereotypical wikipedia "powerbroker" that uses wikipedia to pick fights with people, but only when he thinks he can win: he wears a very thin mask. Users like this keep me from registering on the site and contributing my knowledge in the areas of Science and Engineering. His history is filled with edit wars on IP users, presumably because he sees them as easy targets. For instance, he followed me around wikipedia reverting unrelated edits due to his disagreeing with me on AfD. He's already been to Arbitration for this behavior, and I see it happening again in the future because hes going to keep mistakenly powerbrokering the wrong people because he has a malignant attitude. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

much hullaballoo about nothing. m:dick is a perennial discussion and is well understood. the issue of the quote is not pertinent to this page and has been addressed at User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses#non-free use rationale. hullaballoo had a difference of opinion with me a few weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roca Skolia and showed up last night to rather pointedly "stick a pin" in me. teh unsourced, non-notable fictional character bio was kept due to the usual keeps. Jack Merridew 08:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice job of assuming good faith, Jack. There's a stronger argument to be made that you're just piqued because I !voted against you in a deletion discussion and your position was rejected by the community. Now rather than continuing your incivility, why don't explain why you posted extensive non-free content in userspace, when the applicable policy clearly states such content can only be posted in article space? You conspicuously avoided addressing this point in your invalid rationale.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you what; I'll assume good faith that you didn't really mean to delete assorted people's posts in making your post here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than making low-rent insinuations about obvious technical glitches, you might demonstrate your good faith by actually responding to the main issue: why do you continue to indefinitely keep non-free content in your userspace when the applicable policy says quite clearly that it may be used only in article space? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy at Wikipedia is, for the most part, descriptive (of what we actually do) rather than prescriptive (in mandating what we must do from on high). Free content/fair use, although affected by the WMF board mandate, is no exception to this. We are talking, please remember, about a quote here, not an image. Accepted community practice for non free images is that they are swiftly removed if found anywhere other than article space. However, the same is not the case for quotes. I believe that if you do a reasonable investigation, you are going to find thousands of quotes. I am very cognizant that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't, by itself, a valid reason for not removing something, but I think asking for this quote's removal, as you have done, goes against accepted community practice. Perhaps you need to work to get policy changed by starting a broader discussion, specific to quotes, first... meanwhile you should drop this, because it appears to me that you are taking this personally (as are some other participants, or so it appears). I'll also add that your manner of addressing this by first using a template to notify someone rather than starting a calm and reasoned discussion with them, and of continuing the discussion by raising a wikiquette alert instead of just talking to them, left a lot to be desired, collegiality wise. Presumably as an experienced user, here since 2006, you know better. I think also, the case of Betacommand, who was arguably enforcing policy the whole time, is instructive. The community will not tolerate an abrasive approach when a softer touch is more effective. Drop this, and try a softer touch going forward. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I consense with Lar's well-balanced analysis. Milo 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are discussing Hullabaloo's actions outside of the context of the reason this WPA was submitted. There is clearly a valid debate about whether the steps/actions Hullabaloo took were procedurally correct and or what constitutes fair use in talk space, etc. But regardless of those actions, was a response from Jack Merridew characterizing Hullabaloo as a "dick" uncivil and a personal attack. That is what this WPA is about and what we should be debating in my opinion. My opinion is also clearly stated above, so I won't bother with stating it again. Just expressing my views on the need to focus the discussion on where it should be. --Douggmc (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Lars ... one clarification I'd respectfully request input from you on regarding your statement: "The community will not tolerate an abrasive approach when a softer touch is more effective". Is this directed at one of these two individuals? May I ask what you consider abrasive ... a person applying the rules (or at least a reasonable understanding of them) in an edit OR someone responding to that edit and calling that person a "dick"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douggmc (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It is "Lar" not "Lars", as more than one of me I think would be rather a lot to put up with. :) I consider the initial action by HW to be quite abrasive, as I think I made clear. Jack's response, when provoked, could have been less abrasive as well. So it's directed at both individuals (and further, at everyone, wiki wide... a soft touch is always a good way to start things out, and placing, or referring to, templates is not generally considered a soft touch) ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to respectfully disagree. While the original edit may have seem to have been robotic in nature and maybe not sensitive to Wikipedia "norms"(and even that is debatable, looks just like following procedures to me ... but I'm certainly not an expert on that), it nowhere near compares to being characterized as a "dick" in response. There are many different ways one could have responded that would have been proportional. But ... characterizing your peer as a "dick"? --Douggmc (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. So I think we have some folk here who think the initial placement of the template, without further discussion or any attempt to take context into account, was impolite, and some who do not. Further, we have some folk here who think Jack's response to the provocation was impolite, and some who do not. Is that a fair summation? That is, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus about who was more polite or impolite? ++Lar: t/c 20:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Lar, I guess I would partially retract my suggestion regarding not discussing the actions of Hullabaloo leading up to the "dick" comment. You are entirely correct ... context counts ... and you have to look at the picture as a whole. I would just hope we can be mindful of the real subject of the WPA (it seemed that this discussion was focusing or shooting off on tangent not entirely related). I think your summation is pretty accurate. I would add one thing personally though: consider proportionality. And consider perceived rudeness vs. outright rudeness. --Douggmc (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the substantive matter

Irrespective of the question of whether invocation of m:Don't be a dick in characterizing the actions of a particular user is considered to be uncivil, it's clear that Jack Merridew's usage of non-free content is unacceptable per WP:NFCC#9. Therefore, I have requested the community's attention to this issue in a more appropriate forum. Erik9 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is debatable that it's unacceptable. However starting a broader discussion seems a good idea. However I don't think MfD is the right forum... something more like an RfC on policy in this area seems better suited. Please make sure to include a representative sampling of other quotes for reference. ++Lar: t/c 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Two important quoted fair use factors to consider are the percentage of the whole work that was quoted, and the monetary market for the original work. For examples, how likely is it that a reader would have purchased the whole work simply to read the quote, and could they have easily read the quote at Amazon or Google books? Milo 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. However, in order to justify the use of non-free content on Wikipedia, we require that both of the following be established:

1. The inclusion of non-free content constitutes fair use as a matter of United States' law.

2. The usage is consistent with our non-free content policy, as construed by the community.

(2) is clearly not shown with regard to the non-free content at issue here. Lar has produced, in the MFD discussion, some examples of single-sentence, de minimis quotations being acceptable in non-encyclopedic userspace material despite contravention of the letter of WP:NFCC#9, but nothing to suggest that the community is willing to extend this tolerance to Jack Merridew's extensive, multi-paragraph quotation of copyrighted non-free material. Erik9 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're conceding, then, that it's not the quote itself you have issue with, (given the prevalence and acceptance of quotes on user pages), it's the size of it? That certainly will make things simpler. ++Lar: t/c 20:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The matter is treated holistically: is Jack Merridew's extensive, multi-paragraph quotation of copyrighted non-free material in userspace acceptable? (I did note the length of the quotation in the MFD nomination) Even if you did establish that single-sentence violations of WP:NFCC#9 have been generally accepted by the community -- though I currently take no position on whether your examples are sufficient in quantity for this purpose -- you haven't, in any case, shown that the community is willing to accept violations of WP:NFCC#9 on an a multi-paragraph basis. Erik9 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the intro to Wikipedia:NFCC#Policy is that WP:NFCC#9 does not cover non-free text quotations. Milo 20:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If WP:NFCC#9 is inapplicable to text, then the relevant portion of the policy would be "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author.", the letter of which implicitly proscribes non-free text outside of "articles". The relevant question is still to what extent the community is willing to accept violations of the letter of the policy, for the determination of which the extent of material quoted is undoubtedly relevant. Erik9 (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to debate the question of whether the specific quotation is allowable or not in more than one place. Can I suggest we move further debate of that to the MfD and confine discussion here to whether the actions of various users in this matter were or were not polite? ++Lar: t/c 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Regarding the latter question, a single invocation of m:Don't be a dick in reference to a particular user is not administratively actionable, or even suitable for reporting here^[1]; I imply no conclusion as to the acceptability of analogies between editors and essays whose names incorporate slang terminology for human genitalia on a more regular basis^[2]. Erik9 (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC) superscript notation inserted by Ben Aveling

Could you restate that in English? I got lost in the legalese, sorry. ++Lar: t/c 20:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that [1]&[2] may be the following quotes from m:Dick, translated into legalise:

1. nobody on WP is empowered to ban or block somebody for being a dick
2. Telling someone “Don't be a dick” is usually a dick-move

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

see also: User:Moby Dick and recursion ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Justin A Kuntz

Hi. I'm currently semi-engaged in a discussion at Talk:Gibraltar. There is an editor there who is being, in my view, rather unpleasant to a new editor who has appeared there [54] and to me [55] (that was in response to me merely posting my views on the topic, my words "strongly feel" seem to have offended him for some reason). I feel a few words on his talk page from a neutral party to not get so stressed about things may potentially a help a little. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I see an editor frustrated over a content dispute (that appears to have been also had a loooong time ago) who even says "not trying to make a personal attack here". He's fighting hard not to be uncivil in the face of circular and apparantly frustrating arguments ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I see someone bullying other editors. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I see everyone on that talk page getting frustrated and starting to throw around mild incivilities, accusations and getting worked up, no one person in particular stands out. It looks like everyone just needs to step away from the article for a while and cool down. Jeni ^(talk) 22:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Recurring PA

I left this request on the talk page of User:Will Beback, and he has continued the behavior (diff.) A word from an uninvolved party would be helpful. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not usefully a WQA issue. Editing behavior concerning LaRouche-related articles is under the jurisdiction of Arbcom [56]. I suggest taking this to Arbitration Enforcement. Milo 01:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the ArbCom decisions, and they are not as broad as you suggest. They basically boil down to 3 points: no use of Wikipedia to promote LaRouche, no use of LaRouche sources for articles outside the "LaRouche series," and an affirmation that BLP applies to LaRouche. Several individual editors are warned by the Arbs against incivility, but the ArbCom does not assume any special role in the more general matter of civility or personal attacks on "LaRouche" talk pages. That is the proper sphere of this board. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There are currently 63 hits on a search for "LaRouche" at ANI. I've read enough of them for years now to believe that WQA volunteers efforts are not useful to the project or themselves in that ongoing serial drama. So, I'll apply the "not a suicide pact" consensus to the proper sphere of this board. Editors here can and will do as they please, but I strongly recommend that they avoid any non-trivial discussion involving LaRouche. Milo 06:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your "not a suicide pact" link is broken. Could you clarify what you mean? --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's correctly a search link, but I've narrowed the previous 200-some general hits to currently 31 more-specific hits in Wikipedia talk space. If you want generalized consensus consensually clarified, please post at the Village pump. Milo 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

TMC1982

I brought up the issue of plagiarism on TMC1982's talk page. (Please do take a look at the diff I provided on that user's talk page.) TMC1982 responded by claiming to be unsure of what I was talking about and denying that it took place. I pointed out the diff I supplied in my first message. TMC1982 then responded with disregard for civility and the integrity of copyright for Wikipedia's content. Again please check the diff I provided and read the whole conversation between TMC1982 and me; they are four very brief messages, and I've threaded them for easy reading. Here's a persistent version of the dialogue that has occured, in case the user blanks or archives that section. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A few things...

• The kick off is a bit late. The copyvio you cited - [57] - is over a year old and, at some point, was removed.
• While the web site TMC1982 used in 2008 as a reference - [58] - repeats verbatim the first 3 paragraphs of the edit, at this point it is unclear which came first.
• Yes, TMC1982's comments to your talk page - [59] & [60] - amount to an irritated brush off and a variation of "I didn't do it. No one saw me do it. You can't prove I did it." But it doesn't seem to breach WP:CIVILITY as of yet, even though it does show a certain disregard for other guidelines and policies.

- J Greb (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There can be no question whether the cited source copied from Wikipedia after that material was added, as this can be shown to be untrue in less than a minute using the Wayback Machine. The offending passage is present in the earliest archive of that page. (Additionally, even the latest archive of the page predates this user's edit.)

The lateness of my note is immaterial. If this is habitual behavior for this user, it needs to stop, and other edits incorporating unauthorized material—and damaging to the integrity of Wikipedia's promise that content is available for reuse under a free license—need to be removed, something which I prodded the user to do for himself or herself. 129.15.131.185 (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is habitual behavior for this user

From a moderately thorough skim, as far as I can tell it isn't. TMC1982's response is a trifle snarky, but equally it looks to me like overkill to get so heavy over a year-old edit with no sign of repetition. Chill pills all round, I think. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens accusations and threats

Jclemens (talk · contribs) has accused me of Wikilawyering and Disruptive Editing, see diff. I suggested using Dispute Resolution if he/she genuinely thought I was Wikilawyering. After I stated that I would take the page in question off my watchlist as I found his/her hectoring too much to deal with, Jclemens stated that Dispute Resolution was not needed as if I continued editing in the same way he/she would provide evidence to Admins who would be likely to block or ban me.

I used the term hectoring as I found Jclemens previous edits aggressive and mildly threatening. My edits have been bold but I do not think my edits have been out of order (no other editors on the article have said anything to that effect yet). To me, a threat of using admins without using Dispute Resolution seems to be bullying, possibly to ensure I will stop editing the article. The page in question has a religious topic, and I recognize this could be an emotive issue for some people.

I would welcome a third party view as I recognize this may be my problem rather than Jclements; I may be taking this too seriously, be over sensitive or Jclemens may be right and I may have misunderstood what the terms Wikilawyering and Disruptive Editing mean.—Ash (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A full review of the facts will demonstrate that Ash has indeed been warned by me for his disruptive and tenditious behavior, to include various things such as removing deadlinks contra WP:DEADLINK, challenging sourced references simply because they are pay sites, inserting material from a source and then complaining that it made the article too gossipy, and then flagrantly failing to read the talk page when pointed to a previous discussion on the talk page. Furthermore, the combination of questioning all the reliable sources in an article without any policy basis to do so, subsequent to proposing a merger one of his first two edits to the article (and absent any previous discussion) demonstrates that Ash is simply not interested in working with others, but rather using whatever means seem expedient, including filing a basisless WQA, in order to achieve the elimination of this article. Jclemens (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Note) This BLP/N refers to the same issues (originally not raised by me with intent to cover the accusations above but was raised in an attempt to deal neutrally with issues raised by Jclemens on the same article) but now points to this WQA as a more appropriate process.—Ash (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Kemal and Rob Data

This page was deleted following an AfD last week. An anonymous user then reverted the closure to the AfD and replaced it with a protest against deletion. Since the page clearly said "Please do not modify it", I reverted it back to how it was. (I didn't have time to do anything more elegant as I'm currently accessing this through a tiny netbook with limited internet.) Anyway, now another message has been posted (which I'm going to revert again), which comes across to me as a threat. I am not the least bit worried about these threats, but I thought I should report it anyway. Do what you want. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected the page. Not sure if there's anything else that can/should be done. Rd232 ^talk 10:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking is often a useful tool, in this sort of situation (see {{subst:courtesy}}). Protection locks down the problem, but ideally we can produce a win-win situation where everyone goes home happy. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ownership issues at Ashkenazi intelligence

In the past several editors independently of eachother (among them 72.82.52.106, User:yellowfiver, 70.23.225.197, User:Slrubenstein and myself) have expressed neutrality concerns about how this fringe theory about the Ashkenazi Jews Superior intelligence is being presented in its article. Each time concerns have been brushed off by USer:A Sniper. Today I tagged the article with an NPOV concern tag that he immediately removed without discussion [61]. I reinserted the tag[62] explaining[63] that NPOV tags are not supposed to be removed untill there is a consensus that the article is no longer biased. He removed it again [64] with a less than polite comment and commented agitatedly at the talk page[65]. I did not reinsert the tag to avoid an editwar - but instead requested that he reinsert it himself. He has not responded to this request. But instead defended[66] the removal of the npov tag by stating that "while the article needs inclusion of more critical surces this is not an issue of neutrality" which to me is self contradictory. I think the article generally suffers from ownership problems caused by User:A Sniper's defensive attitude whenever concerns about the neutrality or quality of this particular article is brought up. I would very much like someone to take a look at the situation and hopefully explain to A Sniper how POV disputes are solved here through consensus. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to the user, who has brought up this issue at the page in the past, it has been frustrating demonstrating that the article is about a theory, no matter how kooky, not about an issue. The user's page shows a degree of knowledge in the general area so I find it curious why the issue of ownership against me has been instituted, whereas I have tried (observing WP:CIVIL as best I can) detailing why this isn't a case of POV but simply a misunderstanding of the article itself: it is not about the issue of intelligence among Ashkenazic Jews but instead about a theory proposed by some academics in papers. One can try to use the article as a means of sporting POV to challenge the theory, but it is the incorrect forum. Instead, what I've suggested is that we merely add more bona fide citations to articles or books where there has been challenge to the theory - so far, no editors have done so. But is this actually a manifestation of POV in the article itself? And where is the discussion the user has mentioned? I have never had an issue with this article in several years other than with this particular user, to the best of my knowledge. Lastly, I found it curious that the user used the term "Ashkenazi Jews Superior intelligence" - was this a clue that the user really has a concern over the issue rather than the substance of the article? In closing, I would ask editors to note the difference between a general article about intelligence among Ashkenazim (which this article is not) and whether it is instead an article about a theory...once we get passed this, the user's criticism of my comments at the talk page (and removal of the NPOV tag) may make more sense. I would finally note that I believe the user's suggestion of adding the word theory to the article name is a fantastic one and could end all of this in minutes. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish to request that A Sniper's speculations about my possible ultiertior motivation for tagging the article be disregarded as irrelevant. The article is about a theory defended by a very small minority within anthropology however the article hardly mentions that other viewpoints exist, or much less suggest that they might be the majority viewpoint. This is a direct violation of WP:FRINGE, and in consequence of WP:NPOV which makes an NPOV-tag completely necessary as long as the article is not changed. The fact that the article is about a theory not the larger topic does not mean that the article is ecempt from providing a balanced view of viewpoints both for and against the theory while observing WP:UNDUE. A sniper is suggesting that i am unaware that the article is about the theory, however as he has noted I have suggested that it be renamed "Ashkenazi intelligence theory" which should show that I am aware that that is the topic of the article - renaming it however does not solve the neutrality concerns about the content. Lastly I will request that the closing admin/editor does not brush this off as a content dispute - the issue I brought here was A Sniper's ownershiplike behavior at the article, especially whether it is ok to unilaterally remove a NPOV tag when several editors have expressed pov concerns before any discussion is undertaken and a consensus is formed to either remove it or leave it in place. And possibly the larger ownership issue of A Sniper brushing off concerns expressed by multiple editors over a long period instead of considering that they might have a point (this behavior can be observed at the talk page). ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, what I am concerned about is that you have taken a few scattered comments about content and turned it into a discussion about NPOV that you've been having with yourself. You have not offered any evidence whatsoever that POV even exists in the article - merely that there needs to be additional references from sources that challenge the theory - this I agree with. But instead of it being POV in the article, the proper tag would be that the article needs additional referencing (in this case references of bona fide sources critical to the theory). An NPOV tag would be if the article was biased, contained WP:OR or was slanted in favor of the position of the theory - it does not (and I would hope other editors would agree that it lacks references to criticism but is not actually written in a biased or POV manner). Let's change the name by adding theory - yes. Let's dig up some sources that criticized the theory - yes. But stating the article is itself is written in a POV manner is simply spurious, as is your contention that I am exhibiting "ownership"; I am not an anthropologist bent out of shape about content...I am a Wikipedia editor concerned about incorrect use of a tag. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

At present we are two editors contradicitng eachother about whether the tag is appropriate or not. Why dn't you reinsert it and wait for the discussion to unfold between multiple editors about whether or not there are genuine POV problems with the article or not?·Maunus·ƛ· 19:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

...because the article lacks references (critical of the theory) - it doesn't exhibit bias, WP:OR or NPOV. Why not change the name of the article and add a tag asking for additional references? NPOV denotes a flaw in the writing. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is not the references, it is the content. It doesnt have any content about the opposing viewpoint that makes it a POV issue AND a flaw in the writing. NPOV denotes that the issue is presented one-sidedly and that is certainly the case here - you have enev admitted so yourself.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dikstr & Awickert

Dikstr has been making what I consider to be some inappropriate allegations for some time now. I think that the base reason for the incivility is our disagreement about global warming related issues, but I feel that the accusations that he/she makes are unproductive towards any resolution and often leave me feeling rather frustrated.

• The feelings of frustration cut both ways. There is a persistent AGW-GHG bias amongst some of the 'entrenched' editors in the climate change areas of Wikipedia. An old boy (and girl) network gangs up to RV any information contrary to their POV. I have made repeated attempts to bring some balance to these discussions but have been met with obdurate responses from some members of the AGW-GHG advocates who will not brook any middle ground.Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm happy to work with any specific issues you bring up, and I will promise to do my best to be fair about it. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As a rough chronology, our interactions started some time back as a roughly-resolved content dispute on Solar variation. I had no negative feelings towards Dikstr at the time. However, after that he/she has targeted a number of editors including myself with a number of global warming - related accusations.

• Awickert has difficulty dealing with dissagreement and criticism of his viewpoints, probably stemming from (as he admits) inadequate specialized training in the climate change area which leaves his arguments vulnerable to criticism.Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that my specialization is in a different area, but I'd like to know specifically where it seems I dislike criticism of my viewpoints. I've always felt that I've done a reasonably good job (or at least tried to) when working with those with whom I disagree. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here are the diffs for the disputes he/she has had with me. (He/she has had some disputes with other editors as well, but I don't want to speak for them.) They are in approximate chronological order from earliest to preset:

I repeatedly notify an IP editor who posts a list of complaints to the global warming talk page. Other users remove the list because it has no directly actionable items to improve the article but is rather a discussion of the topic (per WP:TALK), but the IP reverts. I wait for (as I remember) 10 reverts before requesting that the IP is blocked after several notifications, which I thought was more than generous. After that, and without notifying me, Dikstr leaves this comment on the IP's talk page that accuses me of POV-pushing. I see the message some time later, and because I was accused of POV-pushing in a situation in which I was trying to notify an editor about talk page policy, I leave a message at Dikstr's talk page and the following spat ensues.

• Awickert cannot distinguish the difference between a disagreement and a 'spat'. I stand behind my comments - they were fully justified, stated in polite 'queen's english' - and hardly a personal attack!Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps not a personal attack, but an accusation of POV-pushing that I take personally as I do try to subscribe to WP:NPOV. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• We all have our POV's. The objective of a discussion venue like Wikipedia should be to provide a rational debate of them and that is not POV pushing IMO. Suppression of other points of view by rv-ing gangs with the same bias is definitely POV pushing.Dikstr (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dikstr jumped into another discussion on talk:Global warming by writing what I took as an accusation of sockpuppetry. I took offense at this as well, and notified Dikstr at his/her user talk page (full discussion given in diff) that he/she should have checked the edit history and seen that it was simply an unsigned edit by another user. His/her response was that he did not think it was an accusation, and I dropped the issue.

• As you will note from the dialogue he references, I didn't accuse Awickert of planting a 'convenient interrogative' for his follow-on statement. I merely observed that it was a 'convenient interrogative'. Dikstr (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• That wasn't the troublesome part. The problem I had was suggestion that it was a sockpuppet post by me. Awickert (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

He/she then made some nasty comments (e.g., [67] [68]) and more accusations of POV-pushing by editors at talk:Global warming. I warned him again at his/her user talk, and he/she told me I was confused (as he/she claims I was about the sockpuppetry charge) and that I need to be more thick-skinned to edit on Wiki. I told him that I disagreed and that he/she would hear from me when I made a complaint about his/her actions [69], as I am doing right now.

• Nasty comments? Awickert has apparently never participated in the vigorous give and take of direct scientific debate. The heavy -handed rv techniques some of the AGW-GHG advocates wield with abandon in the climate change areas of Wikipedia are far more onerous for legitimate discussion than any characterization I have made of their approach.Dikstr (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I am OK editing with Dikstr; as you can see our initial messages at his/her talk are much more collegial. However, his/her continued disruption of talk pages with accusations about editors not being NPOV bothers me. Awickert (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In summary I would like to make the following points:Dikstr (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1 Wikipedia needs to maintain balanced discussions of its various areas to be a useful resource.

2 The coordinated efforts of action groups of similarly biased editors in some topics, like climate change, and their disinclination to admit information that may not support their views, will ultimately be detrimental to Wikipedia if allowed to persist.

3 Hypersensitive editors who have difficulty dealing with controversy and debate waste the resources of both Wikipedia and its other editors by abusing this venue with trivial complaints.

User:Clockback

User:Clockback (who claims to be Peter Hitchens, which is plausible but unverified) has engaged repeatedly in personal attacks on other editors at Talk:Bob Ainsworth, and generally displayed a battleground mentality, referring to those who disagree with him as "opponents". He also constantly accuses those who disagree with him of failing to WP:AGF. Despite repeated reminders, this behaviour has continued, but no further action has been taken, as the content dispute has gone on at great length on Talk:Bob Ainsworth and also WP:BLPN, now with an WP:RFC, with some (albeit desperately slow) progress. But Clockback's latest contribution is too much and disruptive of the RFC which will hopefully resolve the content issue, which is why I post here. Rd232 ^talk 14:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some sort of action needs to be taken. I considered briefly blocking Clockback for disruption, but I'd like to wait for a few more people to weigh in. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I do find Clockbacks repeated use of the unconfirmed claim to be Peter Hitchins a bit disruptive and I would llike him to either stop that or confirm his identity. He does seem to be a clear WP:SPA and a bit WP:POINTY, since the 22nd of July all of his edits are in respect of inserting a one line comment originating from what he claims to be the website or newpaper of his own blog or affiliation. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading a content dispute. A lengthy one. In my opinion, I'm also reading somewhat "snarky" and passive aggressive comments from multiple parties involved. Personal attacks? Seems like a stretch from what I'm reading. Disruptive? It is taking place on a talk page, quit participating if you wish. Worthy of a block ... I see no such need from what I've read so far (but there is a lot and I may have missed something ... if anybody cares to point out more specific items).--Douggmc (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course there's a content dispute (a lengthy one) - how often are personal attacks made without one existing? And that substantial diatribe against the editors disagreeing with him, whilst it doesn't contain swear words, is certainly an attack on other editors and an aggressive violation of WP:AGF (not for the first time). What annoys me more than anything is that it is completely unnecessary and disruptive of the RFC. And I didn't say anything about a block - I was hoping for an admonition. Rd232 ^talk 19:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to veer too far off the topic, but I didn't say you said anything about a block. But there is a specific item directly above that is contemplating a block. --Douggmc (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hitchens has definitely worked on his Wikipedia entry and has written about it here. Note the date of the article, Clockback has been editing here for several years. Philip Cross (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence. I think we can agree on "plausible", the issue is verification, eg by Hitchens on his blog, or via WP:OTRS. Rd232 ^talk 19:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Clockback should not be allowed to continue asserting he is a notable person without verification. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Er, I don't think that's really the issue here. (It has been in the past, in Clockback's on-wiki discussions of Hitchens' sources.) Rd232 ^talk 20:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are other issues,which I have commented on already but I think his claiming to be hitchens without verification is all part of it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If Clockback wasn't Peter Hitchens, don't you suppose the 'real' one would have raised the issue by now? Hitchens' did just that with an impostor on the Guido Fawkes blog a while ago. Philip Cross (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If Peter Hitchens has off-wiki email or external website webmail, why not send him a request to confirm that he is User:Clockback, including his permission to post the email (without his private e-address) regardless of whether he is or isn't Clockback. If he only has blog posting available, it's a little more complicated to arrange for confirmable emails. If necessary, OTRS can handle the email security and do the secured posting at talk. Milo 22:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Philip, it is easy to think the notable people know what is going on here or care, someone is calling themselves your name on that wikipedia, ow well so what.. but that is not the point, and milo, it is not our work to write to hitchens and ask is this you? It is up to clockback to either stop claiming to be him or confirm his identity. I don't mind which he does, I have asked him to stop claiming to be hitchins withiut verification and I have offered to help him confirm. Either prove it or stop it.Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So if User:Clockback isn't Hitchens, how is Hitchens to know and deny it if someone doesn't write to him? Milo 23:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Our job here is to either stop him claiming to be a notable person or to prove it. I fail to see what the problem is with that task. Off2riorob (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you didn't answer my critical question, creating a catch-22. Milo 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem that would justify selective action agianst User:Clockback. My impression from my brief contact with him is that he is almost certainly Hitchens and that we should in any case WP:Assume good faith on the claim until such time as it is brought into doubt. The fact that this claim is being repeatedly challenged or cast into doubt is evidence that "the other side" of this dispute are themselves being WP:Pointy in their own behaviour. And claiming this is a single purpose account? Come off it! User:Douggmc has it right in seeing what questionable behaviour there is as not coming from just one source. And rather than it being a problem that Clockback has revealed his real world identity, it is good that he is open about it and that his contributions can be read in the context of his being a right-wing columnist with well publicised views on a variety of matters such as politics and mental health diagnoses including ADHD. He also tends to use talk pages much of the time in preference to editing articles directly. This is a lot preferable to the likes of the JIDF who have operated multiple accounts which have changed their page and which have denied any connection with the organisation when challenged. Further, I don't see other Wikipedians with entries of their own being challenged in this way when they identify.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree Peter, It is not a matter of good faith, it is a matter of verify or stop it. Tomorrow someone is george harrison signed in as gomoz. If people are notable and want to keep inserting their name then why don't they get an account in their name, this would require confirmatrion and this is nothing more that a way around confirmation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because it isn't Hitchens? Or... you're already convinced it is Hitchens and you're engaged in a contest of wills?

I haven't read his stuff, but I'm well aware that right-wing columnists are in the business of pushing buttons. As an NPOV encyclopedist, it's inclusively your job here to not let your buttons be pushed. If he's really the problem, give him enough rope to hang himself. Milo 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly a single purpose account. 23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(...says a mysterious unsigned account :) Milo 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I am not claiming to be anybody, I am simply off2riorob and you are milo. Easy. simple, no dispute..no issues at all. (Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

I would prefer if he didn't hang himself and became a valued editor. My personal opinion is that(and I have commented this already) that hitchens would be too busy to bother with this twaddle just to insert that so and so when to a couple of marxist meetings and didn't like it. It is not a contest of wills with the editor, is is a wikipedian thing, either stop claiming to be this person or verify that you are him, it is simple. .Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well said.

You can bet your booties that someone would like to get an anti-Wikipedia story out of this. You/others need to create a righteous journalism position whereof he can't legitimately complain about you/others, or Wikipedia.

If you go the extra mile to contact him via OTRS, and then if he doesn't respond, that removes a due process complaint that he might otherwise blog to gain traction in the right-wing press. Milo 00:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:HM211980

User:HM211980 could do with some gentle coaching. His/her attitude on talk pages and edit summaries is rather worrying. For instance, he has classified my post to his talk page as vandalism. He regularly, and without evidence, seems to think that administrators abuse their powers, particularly when 'losing' a content debate.
None of these are massively dramatic. However, I think the editor should be coached by a third party (my attempts have fallen on deaf ears). The JPS^{talk to me} 17:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

He's been editing for a year, so I think he's probably entitled to form his own opinion on admins. Calling what you put on his talkpage vandalism is out of order I agree, but do you have any diffs for him reacting similarly in namespace?Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that some administrators abuse their powers. There have been numerous instances in which I, and other contributors, have made very reasonable cases to add content to an article, and an administrator returns with the response "If you do it again, you will be blocked", without any rationale or discussion. I could name specific instances and administrators, but I won't unless asked. It seems to me that this type attitude prevents articles from being as complete as they could be. I have tried to add compeletely factual content (about which there should be no dispute) on various occasions, only to have it deleted without administrators feeling obligated to respond, other than to threaten with blocking or the "three-revert" rule. There is a lot of bias going on, and I don't know how to explain other than an enjoyment of the use of admin powers. Some such instances have been unjustifiably labeled as "vandalism". This leads to the conclusion the the term "vandalism" tends to be used with very wide latitude on Wikipedia; thus my use of it. I have enjoyed being a contributor to Wikipedia, but I do not need to to continue it. Therefore, I am going to retire as a contributor effective immediately. Congratulations on a good product. I will continue to be a reader. HM211980 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

HM211980, your edits to namespace are generally in good faith and you have raised some issues over the consistency of which actors to name in the lead. I was concerened with the tone of your communication with a corpus of editors. I hope you don't retire, and continue to make positive edits -- just intereact with less aggression.The JPS^{talk to me} 22:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I never intended to detract, just to contribute. HM211980 (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)HM211980HM211980 (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)